Roger

... but that's the offer in expensive, professionally produced BA ads in today's UK press (unlike R**n**r's who do their own).

Allegedly available from 25/12/03 to 31/3/04, book by 7/10/03.

I'm assuming it should really read 'from £199'. Who will pay for this c0ck-up? The ad agency?

(Or are they deducting the £80 voucher and applying it to everybody .)

UKTony

Strange the TV ad I briefly watched last night was showing US from £199 .. £119 sounds like a misprint, where was the ad?

Roger

I've not read all the papers, so I don't know if all of them have the ad. The one I saw was in The Guardian.

I'd say it was a bit more than a misprint, as artwork had been prepared, presumably checked, checked again and signed off.

It almost certainly should have read 'from £199', as this is the online fare after the £10 discount.

I see that AA are offering LON-NYC fares at £187, presumably the same base fare with less expensive add-ons.

Dave_C

I saw the same ad in the Guardian today, thought it was a misprint too - the Grauniad is notorious for spelling and typo errors.

Roger

Time was, Dave_C.

Those were in the days of metal type when most London newspapers sent their early editions to the provinces and Scotland by rail. Those often had typos which were corrected in time for the later editions, which is what London and the South East got.

In the case of The Gnaudiar, or was it The Garudian , they only had the one edition in those days. This meant that those in the media-savvy South East saw the uncorrected typos.

Now all is computer set, typos are corrected quickly and the Gaudinar is no better and no worse in that respect.

But the c0ck-up in BA's ad is NOT a typo. It is in the artwork contributed by an outside agency, and The Guardian is blameless. The blame is BA's (as the commissioner and fee payer) or the ad agency, who should be fired forthwith .

UKTony

Correct me if I'm wrong but this c@ckup will cost all of £80 to fix by the expedient of BA making one seat available for the quoted 'from £119'?

alexwuk

No; you can get dinged by the ASA if you don't make sufficient seat available at the advertised price.

If anyone buys a £199 ticket (WT - shudder) don't forget to speak to the ASA.

Regards,
Alex

Dave_C

But you could theoretically get the WT+ upgrade for another £300, making it £419 which is a pretty good price.

Do they have to honour the advert? Or did they have E&OE at the bottom (left my copy on the train) getting them off the hook?

Jenbel

They don't need to honour it if they can show it was a genuine mistake, but ASA won't be very happy with them. They don't seem to like airlines with misleading adverts.

House

I agree that in practice BA will probably just choose not to honour the advert, but AFAIK the ASA needs to be shown not only that there was a mistake but that it was an "obvious mistake", i.e. Joe Bloggs would clearly have seen it was too good to be true. Unlike offering US$20 flights from the US to Europe, a GBP119 return fare, while very low, is not beyond the bounds of possibility in these days of freebie flights on certain other airlines...

Roger

Indeed, some of us had unplanned vacations in Florida using flights from London for £98 or so (perhaps £38 + extras) in those grim months after 9/11, and that is a rather longer journey than NYC.